Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 05:59 PM	I just had to write this. There are somethings in the game that just kick my suspension of disbelief in the kidneys and leave it bleeding on the side of the road. A short list: 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. 2) Fog, shade or heavy rain can keep a rogue from figuring out where the heart an kidenys of a given humaniod are located. 3) By certain interpretations of the rules, it is phycally impossible to keep someone from standing up. You can niether trip them as they stand, nor sit on them. 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. 5) After 10,000 years of history, mages still have the same bloody spell list. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. 9) A rapier can break a Greatsword. 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants.
Mike the DM 10-27-03, 07:13 PM	Well, this looks fun (*rubs hands together eagerly*). 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. I rule that a sniper can aim for a specific target, with modifier for size, to say hit something in a target's grasp- for example, the prince is about to drink the poisoned wine and the archer, too far away to be heard over the din of the celebration, shoots the cup in the prince's hands, shattering it and earning the accolades of a grateful kingdom (if she can explain that she really was aiming for the cup and not the prince...). Can that same archer shoot the prince in the head? Uh...I think I'll try the next one... 2) Fog, shade or heavy rain can keep a rogue from figuring out where the heart an kidenys of a given humaniod are located. I'd think a heavy cloak would be more of a hindrance than fog, but I don't have so much of a hard time with this one. Not all sneak attacks are a knife under the ribs, and perhaps the shadowy form in the mist is indistinct enough to make the rogue's lunge juuuuussst a smidge off-target. It's a bit of a stretch, but I can suspend my disbelief for that one. Still not sure what to do with that prince with the bolt in his head...or rather, not in his head... 3) By certain interpretations of the rules, it is phycally impossible to keep someone from standing up. You can niether trip them as they stand, nor sit on them. And by certain interpretations (such as mine, and probably yours), that's as easy as a trip or grapple. 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. DUCK! and the boulder bounces over the agile ranger. Again, not great, but still within the realm of suspension of disbelief. An avalanche, on the other hand... Perhaps a houserule providing for an involuntary position shift (d8, 1= north, 2= northeast, &c.) would add a little verisimilitude. 5) After 10,000 years of history, mages still have the same bloody spell list. Okay, this one I'm cool with - much magical lore has long been forgotten, the changing physics of magic make some spells disappear over time (and perhaps reappear), some wizards horde spells without teaching them to others, many wizards don't ever get into research (more "teaching colleges" than "research universities?"). And besides, there are so many sources of spells to flesh out the core lists that it's pretty easy to introduce new magics. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space Uhhh...ummmm...can we go back to the prince getting hit in the head with crossbow bolt again? Only a massive damage houserule can fix this one. 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. The anatomy of the critter is such that the swallowed creature can't pass the esophagus, perhaps? Not sure which critters you're thinking of off hand. 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. I don't picture a Bugs Bunny-smashing-through-a-door hole in the creature - more of a slit which the character slips out with great effort. Given the simple nervous systems inferred of some really big creatures (such as dinosaurs) along with a healthy dose of fantasy toughness, my suspension of disbelief is willing. 9) A rapier can break a Greatsword. A sunder in desperate need of a houserule - light melee weapons can't break heavier or larger weapons, perhaps? 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. That's easy - the wolves have accumulated their stash through hunting passing merchants, nobles, etc. What I haven't figured out is why the wolves drag around the dead guys' purses and satchels with the treasure inside. You're a tough character to please, VA! ;) Now, about that prince...?
Aucturos 10-27-03, 07:29 PM	*puts away 10' pole, brings out 11' pole and starts poking the thread...*
ehrin 10-27-03, 07:31 PM	Pardon me Mike, but I have to dip into the real world to explain some of my views: 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. Not sure i understand this either: In theory, that's all anyone with a ranged weapon does, even a rifle. aim for a point, and hope that whatever you are aiming at is at that point when the missile arrives. With a rifle, arrow, bolt or dagger, you aim for a point (lead the target) and hope for the best. I am not sure why an excellent crossbowman can't aim for a certain point and hope any less than a general point and hope. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space Not sure how long you can survive in space, but people have been exposed to lava, asphalt, and acid and survived. One famous case (in the EMT world) was a paver who fell into a dump truck of hot/molten asphalt and survived. No one knows how. Same can happen with acid. rare, but physically possible. 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. Biologically (or semantically) this makes no sense. How can something be capable of swallowing someone but not capable at the same time? 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. All depends on the size of the gut, eh? 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. Dire wolves don't smoke, drink, or get married. Of course they have money!
Mike the DM 10-27-03, 07:34 PM	Originally posted by Aucturos *puts away 10' pole, brings out 11' pole and starts poking the thread...* :rofl:
PenderGrass 10-27-03, 08:13 PM	#11 - No matter how hard they try - the PCs HAVE to do what the Players tell them to do - even if the PCs know better!!!
split infinitude 10-27-03, 08:34 PM	Not IMC - the PC's get a will save or intelligence check. Seriously. I refuse to throw out a campaign b/c the fighter "just had to" see what happened when he touched the evil-looking, dangerous, demonic thingy with the "Good PC's Do Not Touch" sign on it.
Grizelda 10-27-03, 08:42 PM	Originally posted by split infinitude Not IMC - the PC's get a will save or intelligence check. Seriously. I refuse to throw out a campaign b/c the fighter "just had to" see what happened when he touched the evil-looking, dangerous, demonic thingy with the "Good PC's Do Not Touch" sign on it. :rofl: whats this button do? http://www.geocities.com/patreding/koboldmorph.txt
Peter Bergholtz 10-27-03, 09:08 PM	1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. Actually, the sniper is obviously an hgh lvl Rogue using Sneakattack on his flatfooted target. Hit him in the head and kills him instantly.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 09:12 PM	Originally posted by split infinitude Not IMC - the PC's get a will save or intelligence check. Seriously. I refuse to throw out a campaign b/c the fighter "just had to" see what happened when he touched the evil-looking, dangerous, demonic thingy with the "Good PC's Do Not Touch" sign on it. Ya, I use the Dm flag thing to save the PCs too. Player: Okay, I jump across the gap and pull the lever. (the 'gap' is 100' wide) Me: Int check! Player: 12, why? Me: you realize gravity exists and you have no ranks in jump. Do you continue?
Vexxan 10-27-03, 09:15 PM	An overabundance of rules, a lack of proper rules or strict adherence to ANY rule can potentially mess up real world logic. That's why you dismiss rules, make some up or completely abandon them. I despise wargaming in general. I realize 3e puts heavy emphasis on combat and tactical options due to the plethora of rules governing it, but D&D is never a wargame to me. I always harken back to the glory days when ALL rules were unclear, undocumented or totally broken. It forced a DM and even players to accept the fact that the 'rules' were in fact only guidelines. I'll try to address your problems with this in mind. 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. - Sure it is. Go ahead and aim. Based on how successful your to-hit roll was and the resulting damage, be creative when describing the result. If it's not disruptive to play, let them strike the target in the head or even outright kill the target. It's a game. If it is disruptive describe how the shot came close to striking home but struck the target in the shoulder or collarbone. Does this need additional rulings? No. Can you throw on some homebrew modifiers? Sure. Extra damage? If you like.. but expect players to demand the same treatment next time, because they WILL. Solution? Just be descriptive and keep things moving. 2) Fog, shade or heavy rain can keep a rogue from figuring out where the heart an kidenys of a given humaniod are located. Throw that rule out the window. One less annoying problem. I agree that doesn't make much logical sense. 3) By certain interpretations of the rules, it is phycally impossible to keep someone from standing up. You can niether trip them as they stand, nor sit on them. Depending on circumstances this is entirely possible by the rules, but that just brings up a sore spot for me with current rulings. Instead implement house rules. Standing up incurs AoO. Rule that a successful Balance or Tumble check (DC 10 + 1/2 damage dealt by any AoO) must be made otherwise you must remain prone. I also allow standing up as a full round action which incurs no AoO. Treat sitting on them as a grapple attempt. As they rise, allow a grapple attempt instead of an AoO. A successful grapple means you overpower them and pin them to the ground and that person remains prone. 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. Rule that any reflex save initiated by an area of effect requires a manditory 5-foot step 'adjustment' (or larger depending on the effect). 5) After 10,000 years of history, mages still have the same bloody spell list. If you're speaking about the Core listings, certainly. That is a collection of widely known magic that has been used for centuries and disseminated to the arcane community at large. There are so many sources for spell descriptions (outside Core) now that it would be incredibly easy to deem anything not Core as exotic magic (not widely known or used). They have rules for new spell creation, correct? The makeup of a casters spellbook is only as exotic or mundane as you make it. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space As mentioned implement the death from massive damage rules. Make the damage per round something staggering. Or rule that immersion in such environments requires a successful Con check (DC 16 + roundsē) or suffer immediate death (much like massive damage). That somewhat simulates the System Shock percentage from AD&D 1e. 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. Not everything that is capable of it *wants* to do it. If by some chance a PC finds themselves inside the gullet of a massive beast, just use the rules as per a similar creature. 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. Wouldn't massive damage rules apply here? I know some of my players used to describe the effects of their own attacks but that ended quickly when things like this happened. Now, as DM, I let them describe their method of attack and the outcome is described by me. 9) A rapier can break a Greatsword. House rules. Although a rapier is designed to pierce, you can still use it to repeatedly sunder at an opponents weapon. Rule that piercing weapons deal only half normal damage to other weapons. If you're particularly nasty about it rule that half damage is done to the opponents weapon and the other half to itself. That alone should discourage sunder attempts with piercing weapons. 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. Dire wolves don't carry treasure around in their fur. They are intelligent so some may actually hoard shiny or fanciful objects. Alternately you could simply say the treasure is scattered in a wide radius around the wolf's lair. There are numerous reasons why the treasure could be there. You could also choose to completely disregard treasure tables and assign valuables as you see fit. Being hung up on rules is more of a problem now with 3e then it ever was in 1e/2e AD&D in my experience. The imaginary world you are playing in isn't real so why should any rules define exactly how that imagination is realized through roleplaying? :confused:
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 09:22 PM	You guys most not have heard of me. I've already homebrewed the hell out of the game and fixed everything I've got a problem with. I was just listing some of the mundane things that always bothered me.
Justisaur 10-27-03, 09:24 PM	#1 I have house rules for that. A lot of DMs do. A lot don't. Many games aren't suited for that level of detail/grittyness. I don't have a problem with it not being standard. #2 You might not be able to make them out enough at 5' away. If you could then the DM shouldn't be giving them 20% concealment. If you were closer, you'd be grappling, then you wouldn't be getting your sneak attack anyway. #3 You can try to sit on them, that would be a grapple with a pin. #4 Maybe there was a nice little ledge near you you momentarily hid behind. Maybe you braced your shield with your sword and hid behind it. There's any number of explanations. You'd have to give a very specific situation to describe how someone avoided the boulder. #5 What game are you talking about? 3.5 just came out this year, changing spell lists and as far as I can tell there is no official 'Mage' class. Unless you are talking about 'Mage of the Arcane Order'? In which case it just changed this year. #6 Yes? You can do this in real life. The lava bit would be a bit hard though, how long are we talking about? 60 to 90 seconds in vacuum - that's 10 to 15 rounds in D&D. #7 Parphrasing other replies: What are you smoke... er talking about? #8 Usually that would result in some HP loss, which is a reduction in fighting ability. #9 A rapier can put someone's great sword in a position to be broken. You aren't taking into account the level of abstraction with this game. Person with rapier catches greatsword on the hilt, guiding a stroke to the ground... greatsword breaks from the impact with the ground. In fact you'd probably have to be doing something like that to be using the improved sunder feat. I assume this is with improved sunder & probably some strength or magic, because the damage a rapier does in average hands cannot break a greatsword. #10 They must like dragging the bodies back to thier lair. Alternately who said it was on hand. It could be in stomach, much like the stuff found in sharks...
Grizelda 10-27-03, 09:44 PM	one question, when a PC gets a save vs. stupidity from their player does that count as mind-affecting with the appropriate bonuses? :D
Inigo Carmine 10-27-03, 10:34 PM	#3) Thats a simple grapple. As long as tyou keep winning the grapple cheks, they're not going anywhere. #4) If the boulder actually ends up in their space (and is big enough, they have to move or be squished (or at least hit) by it. Only for instaneous effects (like fireball) do you not have to move out of your space. #5) Where did you get this from? If you want to, you can play a game that takes 10,000 years in the past, and make it so that there's only 2 mage spells known in the whole world. #6) PCs are tough. If you want to play with any semblance of realism, then stay level 1. #7) Like everyone else, I don't understand what you mean by this. #9) A rapier actually *can't* sunder a greatsword. Only bludgeoning and slashing weapons can sunder. Rapier is piercing.
krichaiushii 10-27-03, 11:11 PM	When was the last time you have done precision work in a hard rain? Between the water streaming down your face and in your eyes, as well as making the tools you are using slippery, I can easily see problems in a hard rain. Thick, heavy fog is almost as bad. Shade, I can't condone. Except MAYBE to say that its dark enough in heavy shade to confuse things a tad. Regardless, the game is set up for ease of play and as little complexity as possible. To attain ease of play, lots of real world logic has been ignored. While it hurts to turn logic off sometimes (especially for those poor souls with analytical minds and mathematics or science degrees), it is almost necessary in fantasy roleplaying games. My $.02.
Dudeeehm 10-27-03, 11:23 PM	#8)Read the MM. You cut between the muscles getting out of the stomach, which is such a clean process the wound heals almost instantly. I'm tellin' ya, having a Dwarf in spiked armor do a full attack with 2 axes in your stomach, it doesn't even require stitches;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 11:31 PM	Explaination for #7: several large creatures, such as the Titan and the Megapede do not have Swallow Whole while they are clearly capable of it. Also, many smaller creatures that tend to swallow prey whole (such as birds and canines (if you don't believe me, watch a dog eat a frog) lack the ability as well. As for the rain thing: I'm and archer and I can hit a bullseye from 30ft in the rain easy. Fog is even less of a problem and Moonlight is none at all.
Starfall 10-28-03, 12:29 AM	Yea... In most of our games that we play, if it makes common sense, then it's doable. Like the "not preventing someone from standing" thing, if we're in a position to pin them down, we do... It works well, this common sense thing :angel:
PenderGrass 10-28-03, 12:46 AM	In most of our games that we play, if it makes common sense, then it's doable. I don't like common sense in my games - I think it detracts from the 'otherworldly-ness' of D&D. If everything in this world was the way it went in THAT world, then you might as well cinch-up your dice bag and head home - because that is all you are doing is ruining a perfectly good world with this place called reality!!! Common sense is what is ruining D&D these days. Just ask anyone - "If you had any common sense you wouldn't be playing with dice and memorizing books name 'The Dungeon Master's Guide' - duh! you must be one of them stupid D&D players.... Boy, you best get some common sense and find yo'self a job that is right in yo'head!" Common sense has no place in D&D!!!! Oh yeah, I like the idea of a totally different reality where no one can keep me from standing up, or big mouths can't swallow me whole, or fog defeats my enemies arrows!!!
Starfall 10-28-03, 12:55 AM	Jiminy Crickets... calm down! I'm not sayin common sense to EVERYthing... just, things that aren't explained in the rules and are easily enough handled, you see? Improv, to a certain degree. You decided to do something that wasn't covered explicitly in the rulebooks, so you go and look up how to do each individual thing and combine it somehow... Otherwise, it's just something that wouldn't be hard or impossible for a character to accomplish. It wouldn't be impossible for a character to hold a person down so they couldn't get up, but the held down person could also fight to get back up, therefore earning opposing strength checks. Did that make sense to anyone besides me? Sorry, I'm tired, so I rambled... :twitch:
PenderGrass 10-28-03, 01:15 AM	Did that make sense to anyone besides me? Sorry, I'm tired, so I rambled... Rambling is okay. I just like the idea of a world where a rapier can bust a greatsword!!! Why wouldn't it? I can empower my monk's fists with ada-poop-ium and bust down iron doors - why can't my trolls be armed with rapiers and the Improved Sunder Feat and call themselves 'THE GREATSWORD BUSTERS!'??? Imagine a whole world where politicians have to beg for campaign donations from a pack of Dire Wolves!!!
Lord of the Ninth 10-28-03, 02:00 AM	That'd be discworld. As a general rule, we try not to base the core rules off of it too much. 7. I have long been anoyed that Dragons (especially the big ones) can't use swallow whole. I think that they ought to be able to do so. So, I have house ruled it. I would also give this ability to every other creature with a mouth. However, many of these creatures would be very disinclined to use this ability (sure I could swallow a frog in combat, but why would I?). So I'd say only the one's with bite attacks get it, and only the one's bigger than the PCs every use it. [btw, if I ever play out a combat between a toad and a dog, and the dog bites the toad, thus killing it, I would say that the dog has the option of immediately eating the toad as a free action] 1. Snipers are assumed to always be going for the maximum damage, that's the whole deal with an attack roll, he isn't just shooting the square, if he was the target would have a 50% miss chance. However, I will agree that being a very good shot ought to make criticals easier to get (after all, if I go toe to toe with a worldclass marksman and we only look at the times I hit and an equal number of the times I hit, he will still be closer to the bull's eye). But this mechanic has been hard to make without completely ruining the whole system, so we'll just have to wait. 5. This'd be why I use RR 1, RR2, T&B, the PHB, a fine collection of Dragon magazines, the BoVD, my own homebrew spells and a few other source books when I make my spellcasters lists. There are a lot of spells in the world, and if you ever want one that isn't in the PHB, you just research it (in game and IRL). Or if none can be found, you make your own. I usually rule that the fewer people in the group have read a supplement the more likely it's contents were discovered in hidden tomes fogotten to time and knowledge {OMT}. It's like this, Fireball is like french fries from McDonalds, every body likes 'em, but you still want Shamazar's Mystic Inferno from time to time just for a change of pace. 6. People have lived after being exposed to the void of space. The question is how long can you last. Just a few seconds'll give a wicked bad case of the bends, but if you stay too long you just blow up like a balloon and go splat. You can also go for a certain time in acid (and it matters a lot what kind of acid, folks say "acid" like it's an element, but vinnegar's an acid, so's lemon juice). I don't remember the rules for a void (I don't think they even have them), but the idea is that most real people are bellow level 10. 20d6 damage (or even 10d6), will kill just about anyone. Even though uber PCs can jump out of airplanes and bathe in lava, most of the world dies doing these things. However, you shouldn't just rule that it's an insta-kill because some people have survived almost all of these things IRL. But, after all the laws of physics apply less and less the higher level you get (eventually epic level characters can walk on water or even clouds). 9. Sure it can, except not really. A rapier deals 1d6 damage, a greatsword has a hardness of 10. So unless you have: A magic rapier [thus you can ignore most conventional logic] Insane strength [which would do it IRL too] An adamantine rapier [which doesn't exist IRL, so we don't know if this would work, and must therefore assume that it makes perfect sense] Otherwise you will deal less than 10 damage to a greasword with each it, thus doing nothing. So, without supernatural circumstances, this is impossible. 2. Ah, but you forget (and maybe this is no longer true in 3.5), fog is very easy to see through at a short distance. So if I want to stab someone, I'll only be about a few feet away (5 in D&D scale), and they won't benefit from the concealment (because it only applies after a certain distance for fog etc.), so I can stab them with great accuracy, but I'll find it hard to shoot them. As is logical. 8. You can also get smacked in the head with a hammer and still do complex algebraic equations in our HP system, that's what we get for being abstract (crappy answer, I know). 10. Nope, you're just wrong on this one. Check your MM, Dire Wolves have a treasure entry of "None". This means that they do not keep treasure. Probably because they ahve an Int score of 2 and no opposable thumbs. This is one of those times whent he core rules didn't mess up. So all is right with the world. 'cept for my spelling, and the numerical order. of numerical break order free, revolution the up! And if you can catch the three fantasy geek references hidden in that post you get a cookie (the first one's easy).
Mike the DM 10-28-03, 04:12 AM	Originally posted by ehrin You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space Not sure how long you can survive in space, but people have been exposed to lava, asphalt, and acid and survived. One famous case (in the EMT world) was a paver who fell into a dump truck of hot/molten asphalt and survived. No one knows how. Same can happen with acid. rare, but physically possible. Agreed. That's why I think 40d6 damage (half-damage for DC 40 Fortitude save) per round makes a nifty house rule for lava immersion or true vacuum exposure, less for acid (depending on pH). Originally posted by ehrin Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. Biologically (or semantically) this makes no sense.I agree with VA on this one - colossal dragons should be able to swallow whole. I mean, that's one of the funniest scenes in Shrek...! Originally posted by ehrin Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. Dire wolves don't smoke, drink, or get married. Of course they have money! :rofl:
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-28-03, 03:52 PM	The Dire Wolves thing was more a thought about the peasants than Dire Wolves. I just looked, and yes, they get no treasure. But this is still more than the peasants, who make less per day that 3 poor meals cost. I guess Sally Struthers is feeding them.
Grizelda 10-28-03, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland The Dire Wolves thing was more a thought about the peasants than Dire Wolves. I just looked, and yes, they get no treasure. But this is still more than the peasants, who make less per day that 3 poor meals cost. I guess Sally Struthers is feeding them. no, but as a general rule, peasant don't go to McTavern and buy thier meals, they grow/hunt for them
split infinitude 10-28-03, 05:16 PM	Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth *snippity* 2. Ah, but you forget (and maybe this is no longer true in 3.5), fog is very easy to see through at a short distance. So if I want to stab someone, I'll only be about a few feet away (5 in D&D scale), and they won't benefit from the concealment (because it only applies after a certain distance for fog etc.), so I can stab them with great accuracy, but I'll find it hard to shoot them. As is logical. It only applies after a certain distance? Did I miss another rule? Where is this?
Justisaur 10-28-03, 05:19 PM	#7 (now that I know what it's about) The swallow whole ability allows you to swallow something that's one size smaller than you, as a grapple action when you bite. Now if you think a human can swallow a small animal (small as in D&D like say a Badger) you are badly mistaken. Humans don't even get a bite attack. Now if you want to make a house rule for creatures swallowing things that are much smaller than them, to expand on this rule go ahead. I think a reasonable ammount would be 4 sizes smaller. You could require a grapple, with a second grapple check to swallow, much like the swallow whole extraordinary ability. This would model it fairly well. Then your Colosal Dragon could swallow someone if it wanted. IIRC I read somewhere this was the case. On Vacuum - it's actually quite survivable for a short period. And you don't explode (though you do blow up like a baloon to about 2x normal volume) According to this page: http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html You have 5 to 10 seconds of conciousness, and die after 60 to 90 seconds, recovering completely if you don't die (I'd call it subdual damage) within about 3 hours. As long as you don't hold your breath - if you try that you are toast. In fact there's one account of a man who had his hand exposed for a long time, it was just disabled and painful during the time it was exposed, and the rest of him was fine, and the hand recovered completely.
split infinitude 10-28-03, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by Grizelda :rofl: whats this button do? http://www.geocities.com/patreding/koboldmorph.txt Actually, thinking about the original Tomb of Horror. If you remember, there was a room with a big demon head in it, it's mouth open to a human-sized oval filled with darkness. One PC, on seeing the big demon-head with the pitch-black mouth, said, "I stand in the mouth" just to see what would happen. It was a sphere of anniihilation or something similar, and insta-death. From that point on, PC's got saves from the stupidity of their players. It's always worth a laugh of two when I say, "Will save v. stupidity" or something like that. It's now the longest-running joke IMC, longer even than "I just want to stay in my castle and rule up my law holdings."
Nephet 10-28-03, 08:13 PM	Vaalingrade Ashland: Here's another one I just thought of while on another thread. Level loss due to raise dead or energy drain affects every character in a 100% predictable way with only the most recently gained abilities being subject to loss.
Lord of the Ninth 10-28-03, 10:54 PM	And the next time you die and are ressurected, or are attacked by an undead creature, you tell us exactly how this ought to happen. Yes I'm being a smartass now, but I maintain that this can't really cause a break in game logic, because there is no parallel, unless you are citing a fantasy precedant; which may in fact have no bearing on the original intent of the rule. So, in short, what's wrong with this?
Shar Baenre 10-29-03, 12:56 AM	Originally posted by krichaiushii Regardless, the game is set up for ease of play and as little complexity as possible. To attain ease of play, lots of real world logic has been ignored. While it hurts to turn logic off sometimes (especially for those poor souls with analytical minds and mathematics or science degrees), it is almost necessary in fantasy roleplaying games. My $.02. God bless TSR!! At least when this was still in their cradle the lack of logic didn't make it flow more like a particular card game ;). Don't get me wrong- I like 3rd edition, but only after the plethora of amendments that have befallen our group's games. Due to this lack of logic, much of our games are improvisational. If a character wants to do something within scope of possibility, I use the little real world knowledge I've garnished in my days and from the nethers of my arse pull out a DC for them. Hey... not very concrete, but it makes it work out, and moreover, it makes it faster than having to cross-reference and thumb through midgame (especially with 3.0 and 3.5 co-existing).
bitnine 10-29-03, 11:16 AM	Originally posted by Mike the DM I rule that a sniper can aim for a specific target, with modifier for size, to say hit something in a target's grasp- for example, the prince is about to drink the poisoned wine and the archer, too far away to be heard over the din of the celebration, shoots the cup in the prince's hands Yes, but he was talking about aiming for the vitals, not the vituals. Eheheheheh... Sometimes I crack myself up. ;) Anyways, this point in particular I think relates to something that I said over somewhere, concerning HP and abstraction and realism. Currently, as is, the system is somewhat abstract. Your character can aim for someone's head, but you don't describe a fatal blow unless both the to-hit roll and the damage match that outcome. The very same to-hit and damage might be enough to kill a character who is low on HP and thereby described an arrow in the eye, whereas a very high HP character hit thereof might be a graze, going by something mentioned below: Abstraction and Playability/Realism Hm, in many of these discussions, one thing that I rarely see mentioned as a seperate factor is abstraction. Abstraction is a very important concept in the relationship between playability and realism, as it largely acts as a middleman or filter that allows the two to gel better in areas where they might conflict. Generally, I'd view the cases of that sort largely as such: Realism/Description <-> Abstraction <-> Playability/Rules Balance And in many cases, people interject ideas about the levels of abstraction versus description (and the realism issues that arise) without thinking of them as a seperate, yet related issue. It's been mentioned here that a strive towards realism does not mean excessive micromanaging and tearing away all layers of abstraction, and also that many game mechanics can filter through abstraction to be described in a realistic manner. If I say that my character possesses an undrawn dagger, that isn't any more or less realistic than if I describe exactly where the dagger is secured, the composition of the binding, the material that the dagger is made of, the style of the dagger, and how its weight impacts my movement. One is just more abstracted than the other. Where this sort of issue often intersects the realism/playability debate is when someone, for example, wants the descripion to know how well-secured the dagger is and how that might impact their attempt to snatch the dagger from said character. From what I've noted, one of the key complaints of realism against abstraction is that abstraction often asserts that a variety of related items are similar enough to not warrant different treatment or specfic rules, whereas those who disagree feel that there should be some gradiation and acknoweldgement of differences to maintain believability. (I've seen a player who believes in modifying the rules to better represent realism, for example, assert that in the case of his character being invisible near a large creature, that crouching down out of its general swing path should provide him a bonus to the miss chance. The DM stated that the 50% miss chance already respresented his character avoiding blows to the best of his ability, whereas the player thought that there definately should be some difference in this case, as it wasn't really reasonable to think that the specific circumstance would have no impact on the checks being made.) Then there's the issue of filtering playability through abstraction in order to generate a description. One example recently made was a DM who thought that a successful sneak attack versus an unaware combatant (a throat shot, for example) should result in the immediate death of the victim (saves and HP nonwithstanding). To which I responded with the idea that that might be using pre-check description to try to circumnavigate the abstraction that helps to keep the game running. That a successful sneak attack that did lethal damage could indeed be described as a throat shot, but one that did a small portion of damage in perspective the the victim's total HP would better be described differently. However, this largely falls into the next thing... Which Type of Realism? One important thing to realize is that people have different goals to shoot for in the persuit of realism. Some people, of course, take the term literally and try to accurately enact things that are physically possible, a world that might be entirely historical except for the addition of a few key fantasy elements, and even those elements (such as magic) fitting into a logical working as closely as possible. However, that's not what everyone's shooting for, even when they move towards "realism". To say that one either wants the above or either a set of mechanics purely to play a game (or in a greatly exaggerated manner to state that to deny the above is essentially welcoming a jumble of nonsensical cause and effects that follow little logic, believability, and consistancy) is a false dichotomy. Aside from a historic and real world pursuit of a set of consistant workings, there is another form that is also popular. And that would be literary/cinematic 'realism'. The portrayal of characters as if they were characters in a fantasy movie or novel, with a set of generally realistic principles with some alterations and deviances that follow the general formation of a story. To a minor extent, even more historical realistic pursuits take some concessions from this idea. One example might be that though it might be more realistic to check to see if a given character develops cancer or another fatal disease during their lifetime, one of the main characters of a story would rarely randomly contract such. Hit Points work fairly well with the idea of such a system, considering the idea of abstraction and filtering decriptions. Consider a character darting across a field which is being peppered with arrow fire. Realistically, the arrows hit where they may and the very first wound that a character receives might be fatal, even instantly so. However, in most story constructs, a hero is scratched, grazed, exhausted, or otherwise superficially harmed before he suffers a fatal hit. Perhaps a few commoner daring a run across the field get pegged and die ignoble deaths. However, the main character attempting the same act might instead suffer a grazing hit or an otherwise less critical injury. Filtering descriptions is helpful here in preserving believability. Seeing a common cutthroat leap from the shadows at (name your favorite important character from a novel here and replace bracketed text accordingly), you just know that [Menion Leah] isn't likely going to just get stabbed and die. Not because [Menion Leah] is a [6th level ranger/2nd level fighter] with over [50] HP and the rogue only does 1d4 + 2d6 + 2 for his damage, including sneak attack, even if that's the mechanical reason. [Menion Leah] is simply too important of a character to get killed by a lucky stab from a common punk. In a book, it's a lot easier to say that he notices the thug at the last second, that the blow is deflected, that the thug trips, or something else - which is part of how you can choose to describe HP loss. That doesn't mean that characters are invincible. Seeing the main character of a story breathlessly lean against a wall, covered with knicks, bruises, and superficial cuts, you know that he's been worn down and is in real danger. Other important characters or tough monsters or groups of enemies pose a real threat as well, even if they rarely kill with their first attempt. (As you remember, [Menion Leah] almost get taken by [a Siren].) 2) Indeed. A rogue crouching along a shadowy alley, stalking an unaware target, cannot use his sneak attack because the same shadows that conceal him make his target that much more difficult to hit? That is a tough one to swallow. 4) Erm, that's not true as such. If you can't genuinely move, you can't make a reflex save. Though if by that, you mean that you don't have to be able to leave your 5' square to be able to make a reflex save to avoid an attack that obviously encompasses that entire area, I erm... They are extremely quick? :whistles: 5) I would imagine that the PHB spell list includes for wizards those spells that are the most common and mainstream. Some are probably older than others, and given the researching guidelines in the DMG, there very well could be (if you wish include them) more recent spells, tending to be in the spellbooks of the particular wizard who researched them. 6) The damage for many of those seem fine. 20d6 for a round of immersion in lava and 10d6 the round after for the briefest of exposure? That's a minimum of 30 damage, an average of 105, and a maximum of 180. That's going to kill most people, and provide a narrow scrape with death for even mid level characters. A 20th level barbarian can survive it reliably, but I'm not entirely convinced that high level characters are more realistic than they are fantastic (or legendary/near-epic as the case may be). If your world only had 1st-3rd level characters, I think that a good deal of things would be much more realistic. 10) Dire wolves often come from successful homes with backgrounds in freelance investing and day trading. They often, however, become enraged when the market takes a dip and attack peasants to blow off steam. However, even at their lowest points, dire wolves live a fairly comfortable lifestyle and rarely are short on cash. Here's another one I just thought of while on another thread. Level loss due to raise dead or energy drain affects every character in a 100% predictable way with only the most recently gained abilities being subject to loss. I agree completely. I mean, all of the real life examples I have of people being raised from the dead show them losing abilities at random. I mean, if they are going to include ressurection in the game, they very least they could do is portray it realistically, along with all of the ramifications that it has in real life. [Edit: Certainly, what we consider generally impossible to achieve or survive might only be things that have a DC of 35-40 or cause a mere 150 damage. However, all things being what they are, people walking about can't "realistically" make those checks/saves and find themselves reduced to far below -10 HP by 150 damage. The simple preposition of "high level" characters which do have hundreds of HP, ability scores in the 40s, who can make checks in the DC 30-40 range is questionable from a stark realism standpoint. Expecting those selfsame characters to function in a manner that we'd consider entirely realistic is largely incongruous with the fantastic attributes that we've just attributed to them. /Edit]
Tzor 10-29-03, 11:59 AM	After looking at Vaalingrade Ashland's first post I am tempted to ask "Where's the beef?" Some of his points, are just plain wrong. 3) Actually you can prevent someone from standing up. Standing up does provoke an attack of opportunity. Dead men can't stand up. 9) A rapier's damage is 1d6. A two handed sword has a hardness of 10 and HP of 10. Even with a adamantine rapier you need at least +4 in strength points to overcome 10 HP, and if you have that, why are you using a rapier in the first place. 10) In the 3.5 SRD, Dire wolves have Treasure: None. Since treasure must use the set of counting numbers nothing can have a treasure less than None.
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 12:23 PM	After looking at Vaalingrade Ashland's first post I am tempted to ask "Where's the beef?" Some of his points, are just plain wrong. Read a little bit more dude... he clarifies the Dire Wolf thing.... The point of the rapier sundering the greatsword is that it IS doable.... maybe waaay out there (kinda like a halfling using lances as throwing weapons with return abilities on them!), but it is doable - especially since an ada-poop-ium rapier would do 1d6+STR damage to the HPs and does not have to overcome ALL the HPs at one time - the damage is cumulative. Dead people DO stand up in D&D - see Zombie, Skeleton, et cetera
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 03:14 PM	WHY THE HECK DO THEY CALL IT A "SNEAK ATTACK" IF YOU CAN DO IT IN PLAIN SIGHT - this is just plain stoopit!
Tae Kwon Dan 10-29-03, 03:33 PM	It got mentioned, but overlooked so I'll post it clearly. A rapier CANNOT sunder a Greatsword. You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 03:38 PM	You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. so change it to a SAP and you still get the crazy unreal feeling.... Player: Pulling my sap from my back pocket and I close with the barbarian and use my leather sock filled with GPs to sunder his weapon!!! DM :rolleyes:
Tae Kwon Dan 10-29-03, 04:18 PM	Saps only deal subdual damage and objects don't have subdual damage so it doesn't matter. You're just going to have to let this one go.
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 04:30 PM	You're just going to have to let this one go. Ha ha!!! yeah...... riiiiiiight Since you need to be so dang-blasted particular - let me use this one: A tiny greatsword sunders a huge greatsword. Possible? Yes (even according to all your dang-blasted nit-picking). Reasonable? No.
Tae Kwon Dan 10-29-03, 04:35 PM	Sure it's reasonable, because as shown above the only way you're pulling that off is by being of an exceedingly higher level than your target (to overcome your penalties on the sunder attempt for weapon size) and have a largely superior quality item (to get through the target's hardness). So I'm sticking with let it go.
bitnine 10-29-03, 04:35 PM	Originally posted by PenderGrass A tiny greatsword sunders a huge greatsword. Possible? Yes (even according to all your dang-blasted nit-picking). Reasonable? No. Well, some of this, as mentioned above, depends on the numbers being used. A tiny pixie who wields the cutest little kukri that you've ever seen doing enough damage to sunder the greatsword might be part of the issue here. The simple fact that she's able to generate that much damage is perhaps an underlying issue. Heck, she'd be able to do other things like kill an orc with a single blow given her damage rolls.
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 04:42 PM	So I'm sticking with let it go. And thus I prove my point that any argument can be won by just repeating the same mantra over and over... can too can not can too can not can too can not....... and thus, it cannot! halfling with the pixie sword wins!!!!
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 05:01 PM	Oh yeah, by the way.... if you don't know already, if you roll the pixie's STR and dump your 18 in that slot (-6 for racial bonus - I think) and then boost its STR with Bull's Strength and whatever other buffs there are that would stack.... you wouldn't need a insanely powerful weapon just insane amount of STR
bitnine 10-29-03, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by PenderGrass you wouldn't need a insanely powerful weapon just insane amount of STR That's partially my point. Take a pixie barbarian with a high BAB and 40 strength. When you take that as a given (fantasic as it is), and then expect the results of the acts performed by that character to match something far more mundane, there might be an incongruity other than the sundering rules going on here. A pixie who can deal 100 points of damage can rip things apart right well, and the issue that skirts believability might very well be the "pixie" and "100 points of damage", with the sundering issue being largely resultant thereof.
WaterRabbit 10-29-03, 06:13 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland As for the rain thing: I'm and archer and I can hit a bullseye from 30ft in the rain easy. Fog is even less of a problem and Moonlight is none at all. Ok, attacking an immovable object. AC 10 -5 (Dex) - 2 (additional penalty for immobile) = AC 3 + 8 (size) = 13 To Hit: BAB + Dex Modifier + Range Increment + Size Modifier + Equipment Modifier. For the target to get 20% concealment bonus for rain, fog, etc. it must have 50% concealment. Kind of like shooting at your target through a bush that doesn't have a lot of foliage. I assume that you are shooting at your target with a modern bow ? Perhaps a modern compound bow and not a wood and deer gut string bow? Let's give it a bonus of +2. So at 30' (i.e. point blank range) you don't take any penalty for range. Let's also assume that you have a BAB of +2 and a Dex modifier of +2. (Just for argument sake). To Hit = +2 + 2 +0 +2 = +6 +5 (full round action to shoot immobile object) = +11 You might have the Point Blank Shot feat. (an additional +1). So you would need a 1 or better. I would call that easy, a 95% to hit. So even if it was raining hard enough to give the target 20% concealment that would be a 76% chance to hit. Or 7 out of 10 (or 15 out of 20) arrows will hit the bullseye and 3 will miss the bullseye. I would say that if you can hit the bullseye that frequently in a heavy rain you must be pretty good, since I have trouble seeing objects that small at 30' during a heavy rain. Even if your base to hit was only the +5 for an immobile object you would still hit 52% of the time. If anything these rules are overly generous. Of course the bonuses add up because you are not dodging attacks yourself. If you were that would drop the chance to a mere 32% to hit the bullseye (without bonuses). Perhaps you could clarify by telling us how many arrows out of 10 you can put into a bullseye at 30' in a heavy rain. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-29-03, 06:20 PM	I'll do that next time it rains here. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-29-03, 06:25 PM	Okay, the rapier: though I thought rapiers were slashing/piercing that doesn't change the equation. A short sword (if you've seen a real one you know how luducrus this would look) does 1d6 damage. With Weapon specialization, a masterwork weapon and a +2 STR, you theorhetically chip the greatsword so badly that you do 10% structural damage one out of every 6 hits.
Lord of the Ninth 10-29-03, 07:14 PM	No you can't, 1d6 +2 is never greater than 10. So you can NEVER deal enough damage to over come the hardness of a greatsword (or any other steal weapon). Masterwork has no effect on damaging an item, it is only relevent to your attack roll. With a +2 strength modifier and a no supernatural aid (magic weapons, imaginary metals etc.), you cannot sunder a greatsword with anything that deals less than 1d10 damage, and you would still have to work at it. And this still completely ignores the fact that you cannot sunder with a piercing weapon, such as the Rapier or Shortsword. While I would say that one really ought to be able to deal slashing damage with a shortsword (and at no penelty), this is a house rule. So you cannot sunder with a rapier. This is the second time I have made this point, and the is at least the third time it has been made on this thread. I will now be rude: YOU CAN'T SUNDER A GREATSWORD WITH A RAPIER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR AT LEAST 3 REASONS. STOP IGNORING THEM. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES As a side note, it is an exercise in futility to argue that almost anything that is based almost solely on magic (or cannot exist without it), should or should not work a specific way. Or that it is illogical that somehting magical should work a certain way.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-29-03, 09:09 PM	a shortsword is piercing? calm down, LotN, its not life or death.
PenderGrass 10-29-03, 10:02 PM	I will now be rude Please don't ever stop...... Say it as many times as you like, heck, gather your friends and family to help your number of posts grow - I can still sunder any weapon you have with a pixie-sized dagger and enough STR.
Lord of the Ninth 10-30-03, 04:53 PM	Vaalingrade Ashland, yes it is. Sorry about that last post, but I really hate it when someone says something that's not true, I correct them, and they continue to argue the same point as though I wasn't even there. PenderGrass, no, you can't, because daggers are piercing too. I will, however, agree that you could sunder anthing with a pixie sized light hammer and enough strength. Yes, I'm still right.
PenderGrass 10-30-03, 04:59 PM	Yes, I'm still right. No. You are wrong. ;)
bitnine 10-30-03, 05:28 PM	Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth PenderGrass, no, you can't, because daggers are piercing too. I will, however, agree that you could sunder anthing with a pixie sized light hammer and enough strength. Indeed. Said pixie could, given enough strength, rend stone with her bare hands or lift objects hundreds of times her own weight. She'd be able to do gigantic amounts of damage to even the largest of dragons, despite the fact that she could only reach a relatively small volume of the beast to hack into.
snail shell 10-30-03, 08:34 PM	This common sense issue is popping up a lot lately (I wonder if one could use the boards to track how quickly random information passes from person to person...kind of like fasion...ever read Pattern Recognition? But I'm off subject, sorry). Indeed. Said pixie could, given enough strength, rend stone with her bare hands or lift objects hundreds of times her own weight. She'd be able to do gigantic amounts of damage to even the largest of dragons, despite the fact that she could only reach a relatively small volume of the beast to hack into. To continue in this vein: A dimuitive pick in the hands of a Pixie could never break a Greatsword. But there is no such thing as a Pixie. If there was, there is still no way to get the Pixie's strength up to the range we're talking about here (not even with steroids). So to say that you have such a Pixie with such a weapon and such strength, is to remove common sense from the issue entirely. To sum it up, there is simply a conditional modifier to the original statement (as long as we ignore the recent discovery that rapiers can't sunder...but I think the rapier was used as an example, not a rule) A rapier can sunder a greatsword with the aid of magic. Without the condition, the statement makes no sense (as per Vaalingrade's complaint). Er, even with the condition, the statement makes no sense, but it's the kind of nonsense that we've acclimated oursleves to.
Lord of the Ninth 10-30-03, 09:19 PM	I concur.
PenderGrass 10-30-03, 10:58 PM	A standard dagger in 3.5 is Slashing OR Piercing - so Pixie Dagger still rules!!! PIXIE DAGGERS ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!
Adrez Nesnsid 10-31-03, 06:53 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. DUCK! and the boulder bounces over the agile ranger. Again, not great, but still within the realm of suspension of disbelief. An avalanche, on the other hand... Perhaps a houserule providing for an involuntary position shift (d8, 1= north, 2= northeast, &c.) would add a little verisimilitude. What if the character is in the center of the area of effect of a fireball spell??
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-03, 07:03 PM	See, I can except that, because thats blocking flame from you body. But when something completly fills the space....
General Dorsey 11-01-03, 12:50 PM	Your issues (with errata): 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. Well, for simplicty, no they cannot. I would argue that most crossbows from days of yore are not accurate enough to snipe with. Becuase there are no scopes, targetting after a certain distance becomes very difficult so one must aim for center mass. However, there are rules that allow for sniping. You simply have to be willing to use the optional rules for damaging specific areas. Consider also that any creature that you are sniping is probably considered flat-footed and the weapon's damage is based on how much an average person can take, not a leveled character. 2) Fog, shade or heavy rain can keep a rogue from figuring out where the heart an kidenys of a given humaniod are located. For all the ranged attacks, I agree with this. With melee attacks within 5 feet, I agree with you. You could simply override this rule by stating that there is no concealment within 5 feet under these conditions. 3) By certain interpretations of the rules, it is phycally impossible to keep someone from standing up. You can niether trip them as they stand, nor sit on them. Actually, you can. No, there is no rule that makes this explicit, but the rules are there nonetheless. The standing up from prone provokes an attack of opportunity. Trip the opponent and you have put them down again. Or, if you want to sit on them, use the rules for grappling. 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. I don't use reflex saves for solid objects striking characters. It doesn't make sense. I use attack rolls. Reflex saves are reserves mostly for energy attacks. 5) After 10,000 years of history, mages still have the same bloody spell list. If they learned ther magic from a guild (i.e. school), then this is fine with me. In schools today, we still teach students the same thing, even when new things are discovered or invented daily. This is simply to develop a baseline for the student to grasp the concept. There are things of all levels of skill that are considered "standard." Quantum physics (8-9th level spells?) has a baseline that everyone knows. What is beyond that is up to those who further the research. There are rules for creating new spells which requires research. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space All these are possible in reality as well. Although they may sound implausible, they are true. You do have a short time limit, but you can survive. The game is about heroes. Heroes get do be special and survive things that would endanger or kill average people. 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. I'm not a big fan of the whole swallowing whole thing. However, the size of the creature is not what is the issue, but the size of its mouth. In the real world, there are creatures that have large enough mouths to swallow small animals whole, but do not. Alligators come to mind. They tear apart their food. Other creatures, such as frogs do swallow their prey whole. I think it is up to the type of creature more than its capability. 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. This, I agree with. Tearing your way out of the belly of the beast should be devisatating. Personally, I think that rogues should be able to sneak attack in there (the stomach is a vital organ and the creature cannot dodge), and others should be able to coup de grace. The creature is really helpless against that attack. I think the rules disagree with me here, but common sense says they cannot avoid the attack. 9) A [small slashing or bludgeoning weapon] can break a Greatsword. This makes sense to me. First, an opposed attack roll is necessary. Then, you hve to deal damage. Greatswords can take 10 points of damage, but ignore the first 10 from every hit. This means that a character with an 18 Strength, and a battle axe can, at best deal 2 points of damage to the greatsword. It will take 5 perfect hits to sunder the greatsword. 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. Peasant have actually a considerable amount of money. In most games, peasants are not serfs, but simply poor folk trying to make a simple living. They raise animals and grow crops. Some bake, others tailor. They don't actually need money. They barter services. It has always been a very effective way to get goods and services and is still used today, regularly by those of us who have very little money. Keep in mind that the prices in the PHB are for adventurers. The markets will always increase or decrease prices based on their buyers. Take, for example, medicines produced in the USA. The exact same medication sold in America can cast half as much in Mexico, 75% in Canada, and for some meds (AIDS in particular) cost 1/400th in Africa. There is no difference in the product, only the buyer. Peasants do not have a lot of liquid assets, but they are not unable to support themselves.
Donnavin Snowolf 11-01-03, 02:58 PM	I have never heard of someone surviving after falling in lava. If you could direct me to a reputable new source that covers one of these stories I'd be interested to see it.
bitnine 11-01-03, 03:45 PM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf I have never heard of someone surviving after falling in lava. If you could direct me to a reputable new source that covers one of these stories I'd be interested to see it. I've never heard of a person with over 100 hit points. I'd like it if someone could find me a reputable news source that documents that, as well.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-03, 03:59 PM	who knows how many HP people have? There are people who've taken as many as 20 dagger wounds and survived. At average damage, thats 40 hp, which is pretty good for say a 12th level Rogue with 10 CON. I'm sure there are people who could take the 50 stab wounds required to qualify as having 100HP. But no one is going to survive immersion in liquid above 451 degrees Farenheit.
General Dorsey 11-01-03, 06:22 PM	Information about people burned by lava can be found: Here (http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/south_america/question1408.html) Here (http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=3897&messageid=1047394830) Here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hawaii/rhodes3.html) Here (http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201172711) I can find more if you would like.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-03, 06:33 PM	I'd like to see more. None of these were full emersions, just contact.
Whaledawg 11-01-03, 07:08 PM	I have never heard of someone surviving after falling in lava. If you could direct me to a reputable new source that covers one of these stories I'd be interested to see it. Darth Vader
Donnavin Snowolf 11-01-03, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by Whaledawg Darth Vader fair enough...
bitnine 11-01-03, 08:24 PM	As I've said above, I think that you'll find that things are quite a bit more realisitic if you: A. Remove all magic (supernatural abilities included) B. Limit all characters to a 3rd level maximum C. Limit all ability scores to 20 or lower An example along another vein might be that I've got a poison that's all but impossible to survive IRL. In game, it does a primary damage of 5d6 consitution, secondary damage of death, fortitude save DC 42. Putting aside the roll-on-a-20 autosave (which is indeed 'unrealistic'), having a character survive that poison is the result of him having a fortitude save with a +22 modifier. Indeed, the poison might be pretty much impossible to survive IRL, but I've just pitted it against someone who's impossibly hearty. Expecting someone who has such incredulous traits that I've allowed to be assigned to him to somehow react in a manner that I'd expect from 'real people' is incongruous at best.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-01-03, 09:02 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland There are people who've taken as many as 20 dagger wounds and survived. At average damage, thats 40 hp, which is pretty good for say a 12th level Rogue with 10 CON. It's also pretty good for, say, a 3rd-level Fighter with 16 Con and couple Toughness feats. It's also pretty high for 20 knife wounds, given that there's no strict correlation between number of wounds and number of damage rolls. I can throw 5 punches in a second; even if someday I have all of them connect, I don't think that means I'm a 15th-level monk. I'm sure there are people who could take the 50 stab wounds required to qualify as having 100HP. I'm also sure those people could be killed with a single bullet from a normal human, which no 100hp character can be. who knows how many HP people have? But no one is going to survive immersion in liquid above 451 degrees Farenheit. There's your answer, then - real people don't have enough HP to survive whatever damage full immersion in lava does (30d6 to 50d6 - DMG p. 304). Real people also don't have enough hp to survive falling 1000 feet onto sharp rocks, having stone-melting fire breathed on them, getting hit by a giant's sword hard enough to be knocked back 10 feet while wearing no armour, or any of a dozen other things high-level adventurers are expected to do on a regular basis. No, it's not realistic. It's not supposed to be. High-level characters are by their very nature magical beasties. Whether their magic is active (hurling fire from their hands) or passive (shrugging off damage that no real human could survive), it's still unnatural. By design.
aldymnor 11-01-03, 09:15 PM	1) Yep. I don't like that either but it doesn't detract from my gameplay; we give snipers their appropriate bonuses which transfer over in game terms as "I'm aiming for the neck." 2) Fog ... Oh i get what you mean. Sneak attack. Yeah that's weird to me too. 3) Yet if you interpret rule 0 correctly, your DM will allow for it. Having said that, through only misuse of the rules are you unable to do that. Oh also use rope works. 4) Yep. That annoys me - when I'm feeling creative, i mandate at 5-foot-step (dive) when reflexes are made for certain situations. 5) Who said anything about 10k years? :nonono: 6) no rules for the void of space. Other two are ridiculous, but you can also feasibly get up from a 200-foot plunge and dust yourself off if you have enough HPs. Ideally this describes what true mythic fantasy heroes are like. 7) Reminds me of some college things I shouldn't talk about other than saying it's entirely realistic like that. Hush now. 8) At almost no juncture does D&D ever say how much damage affects how much material, except in specific cases as vorpal, disintegrate and other fight-ending effects. IF they don't end the fight, the effect describes why. Disintegrate says it dissolves up to 10' cubes per level, but it doesn't say it has to. 9) Seen it happen. It made sense; the broadsword was a piece of crap. It's more dependent on who weilds it. Breaking swords with other swords if they're the same material is pantamime to impossible anyhow, regardless of model. 10) Though peasants were dirt poor in most feudal europe, I agree that's sort of ridiculous. Well, it's not "on hand," the treasure section of the DMG says most or all treasure is in the creature's lair. So the wolves probably took their necklaces and music boxes and put them in their nest, insisting they don't have anything "on-hand" (or paw).
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-03, 09:25 PM	Originally posted by bitnine As I've said above, I think that you'll find that things are quite a bit more realisitic if you: A. Remove all magic (supernatural abilities included) B. Limit all characters to a 3rd level maximum C. Limit all ability scores to 20 or lower :whatsthis well... it seems we missed the point. I specifically only mentioned things that can't be explained away with 'its magic'. I'm fine with things being explained away with magic. What I'm not fine with is things being unrealistic for the purposes of extraction. You get immersed in lava, strong acid, or something of the sort, you die, reguardless of you toughness and rolling with the punches. Trying to break a sword with a rapier will break the rapier before it ever breaks the sword. And darkness doesn't change where you kidneys are.
PenderGrass 11-01-03, 09:53 PM	You get immersed in lava, strong acid, or something of the sort, you die, reguardless of you toughness and rolling with the punches. AH-HA!! I bet Neo would survive any of those.... did you see him wipe out those Smith's???? I KNOW HE COULD SURVIVE!!!
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-01-03, 10:14 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland 1) It is not possible for a sniper, with a crossbow to aim for anything other than the geraral space his target occupies. i.e., lack of Called Shots. Design decision for simplicity, since the assumption is that targets will typically be armoured enough and moving enough to make precise aiming impossible for all but the most skilled in the best circumstances (Sneak Attack). Even from a mere 30ft, a target moving unpredictably at just 1 yard/sec will have moved half a foot, enough to throw off most precise aiming. Against stationary targets, there is some hope of sniping. You could make them subject to a CdG, or simply say that high-hp creatures have innate magic giving them a flash of forewarning of attacks, allowing them to move a little (not helpless) if not a lot (flatfooted). This latter appears to be what D&D does; even when it's not explicit, magic is still very present. 2) Fog, shade or heavy rain can keep a rogue from figuring out where the heart an kidenys of a given humaniod are located. At range, it could make the target's motion harder to predict. Since accurately predicting the motion is crucial for precise shot placement, I can imagine this preventing Sneak Attack at range (but not in melee). 3) By certain interpretations of the rules, it is phycally impossible to keep someone from standing up. You can niether trip them as they stand, nor sit on them. You can do both. Ready an action to Trip them as they stand, or Grapple and Pin them. 4) You can reflex out of the way of things like falling boulders without ever moving. Small-scale movement is assumed; due to the granularity of the system, anything that doesn't take you more than a couple of feet isn't considered movement. It takes a large boulder to provide no avenues of escape within a couple of feet. Of course, such large attacks will occur sometimes (such as a very large dragon doing a Crush attack), in which case characters would be required to move. I believe you're correct that there are no rules for where the character goes in such extreme circumstances. 5) After 10,000 years of history, mages still have the same bloody spell list. Not in most game worlds. For example, the default world (Greyhawk) includes spells like the Bigby's Hand series. Presumably these were created by Bigby, who was (at least in 1ed/2ed Greyhawk) a contemporary wizard. 6) You can live after falling into lava/acid/the void of space High-level characters are not normal people; they have abilities beyond what is at all possible in real life, and their survivability is most definitely one of those unnatural abilities. 7) Not everything capable of swallowing someone whole can swallow someone whole. Not everything wants to swallow active opponents. The Swallow Whole ability likely includes not only specialized throats for swallowing unusually large prey, but internal armour for making the practice less suicidal. Moreover, for simplicity, it appears as though only things that might conceivably swallow the PCs have SW attacks, which automatically discounts most creatures due to size constraints. Most Medium creatures (humans, dogs, etc.) can swallow items about 2 inches across, meaning that - barring special throat construction - it would take a creature at least 60 feet tall to swallow a helpless human, and more like 150 feet tall to swallow an armoured, struggling human. Those creatures that do have the necessary special throat construction to swallow unusually large creatures have SW attacks; those that do not do not, since if they're not going to be swallowing PCs, who cares? (Aside: look at the sizes of even collosal dragons compared to humans. A dragon with a 100-foot-long body compared to a 6-foot human might be like you compared to a lizard with a 4-inch long body. Would you really like to try swallowing that - claws and all - before it was dead?) 8) Along the same lines as 7, cutting a human sized hole in somethings gut doesn't cause any deteriaration in its fighting ability. A little odd, yes - it's a rule made so swallowed characters have some chance of getting out alive. If a creature's got a specialized throat that allows it to swallow large, struggling prey, perhaps it has a specialized stomach that aggressively stems bleeding from slits in it. 9) A rapier can break a Greatsword. Changed to "a table leg can break a giant's greatsword". True, but not without enough magic so as to make the situation innately fantastical. 10) Dire wolves have more cash on hand than peasants. As noted, this is false - peasants make their meals, rather than buying them, and accordingly survive without racking up huge credit-card debt. Which, interestingly, modern peasants do not... ;)
bitnine 11-01-03, 10:16 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland :whatsthis well... it seems we missed the point. I specifically only mentioned things that can't be explained away with 'its magic'. You'll note that magic only covers A. High level characters can come by outlandish traits in a strictly extraordinary fashion. The amount of HP, saves, and other statistics, even sans magic, that high level characters can attain are incredulous to the point of surpassing what you would see someone possess in real life. This is best seen in epic-level play, but starts occuring at levels before that treshold. A barbarian's DR, for example, is a superhuman trait that could not hope to exist within the real world. Toss him naked, rolling around in a pit with angry housecats, or have someone toss some 3.0 shiruken at him for a few hours, and there's no chance he'll be wounded. There are things are marked as extraordinary that are not realistic to be obtained. And these occur long before a epic character can walk on clouds using his sheer skill of balance. There are various things in the books that are maked extraordinary that I'd not expect to see in real life. And yet those traits are assigned to various classes and characters as they increase in level as if they were fictional heroes and not realistically trained individuals. While I agree that these things are not realistic, I think that you are finding the wrong area to note them as such. A barbarian's DR is unrealistic. This is true. However, accepting such a trait exists and is possessed by a character, there are certain consequences that follow. This doesn't change that the DR is not a very realistic trait to possess, but there is an incongruity with accepting its existance and allowing it into a game and then expecting it to act completely realistically.
I forgot. 11-01-03, 10:37 PM	I agree with bitnine, except the part about this not being the place to complain about it--or to point it out, as the case may be. It seems to me to be a matter of game balance vs. logic. Usually, I try to vote in favor of balance, but it does mean that you have some results that just sound stupid. Personally, I'm relieved that my kidneys are protected by the nice fog.
General Dorsey 11-02-03, 09:55 AM	I'd like to see more. None of these were full emersions, just contact. I'm not sure if I can find full immersion, but your original post was about falling into lava. Not quite the same thing. It shoud be noted that people don't really sink in lava. It is too dense. Most people who come in contact with lava will try to get away quickly, so I'm not sure if there are any credible sources about full immersion. And darkness doesn't change where you kidneys are. Darkness has no affect on where organs are located, that is correct. What is does have an affect on is the ability to target those organs. Fighting in the dark is hard. The US army specializes in it, but they have actually had to create equipment so that they can fight effectively at night.
ehrin 11-02-03, 10:27 AM	Ah, the lava question: Let's look at it in two worlds: in the real world, i have seen people fully immerse their hands and arms in molten metal (usually lead), which is at least 2,000 degrees F. Granted, only for a moment, but, that leads us to the other world: DnD: I really think that survival from 'full immersion' in lava is simply a matter of poor storytelling or poor DMing/damage calculations: Forgall, my dwarven fighter, falls off a bridge into a pool of molten lava. I ask for a savings throw: he makes it! Thus, I rule that only half of the potential damage actually occurs. In my story, Forgall falls but lands flat on his shield, which gives him a quick moment to reflexively recover, and leap to a place of safety. Perhaps a nearby piece of cooled magma, which doesn't immediately burn through his shoes (they are steel covered, as he is a tank in magical plate). The lava cools beneath him, forming a thin crust that isn't as dangerous. Damage is assessed, but since he saved, that means something miraculous happened to help him out. Perhaps his bottle of healing potion broke in the fall, and healed him as the lava burned him (can the steam from a healing potion burn? or only heal?) His leather underarmor and padded jerkin took much of the brunt of the damage, rather than his skin. Hundreds of variations are possible. If he fails, then he takes full damage: if he survives that, then he still takes damage "round two", and continues until he is rescued/escaped. If someone casts spells for his defense, I would story tell that they occured FAST, so that subsequent rounds of damage did not occur. I would also rule that he did not get saves each round anymore... fail your first, full damage on the others. Heck, maybe even Max damage if the character was meant to die. Can a real life human survive contact with Lava. Yes. Can they survive full, long term immersion in it? No way. But then again, we don't run around jumping pits of it in search of demon queens either.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-03, 04:06 PM	The rules in the DMG are for full immersion, not contact. Contact, I'd put at 2d6 and you get off ASAP. But immersion will kill you. Same as acid -- Do not fall in. That is all.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-13-03, 01:49 AM	Some more: 1) Nothing, not even explosives, explode. They cover a radius an do not expand to fill (I understand that at one point they did) 2) Wizards, who exist by tricking reality into thinking they're sorcerers and bards, can't seem to figure out how to heal people. 3) You cannot hold your weapon in an opponent, nor can twist it. 4) I'd just like to hear a discription of a +4 or 5 weapon as opposes to a +1 or 2. 5) Creatures both capable and willing to swallow you -- can't chew. In fact, nothing chews. 6) Rats don't gnaw 7) You need to be around 9th level to knock someone unconsious in one hit.